On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastlund at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Robby Findler
> <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Could we populate the Language dialog with popular choices (PLT
>>> Scheme, R6RS Scheme, etc.) that all just dump the user into what we
>>> know as the Module language, but with the right first line provided?
>>> It seems like what users want is split up differently from how we've
>>> implemented it, so why not present a menu split up the way users want
>>> and keep the implementation split up the way we find convenient.
>>>> I considered this, but am afraid that it may be too big of a change
>> for some of our users at this point. Also, I'm afraid that we don't
>> yet have (up to snuff) #lang-based versions of all of our languages.
>> I'm not proposing removing any of our current options, nor using the
> "bait and switch" technique for any language except the ones that we
> only support via #lang. The student languages should stay separate
> from Module, and anyone who wants Module should be able to get it (by
> that or another descriptive name). But some languages people are
> looking for, that they might not think fall under "Module", I don't
> see any reason not to provide by name: PLT Scheme, Typed Scheme, R6RS,
> etc.
The only language I see in the language dialog that appears to meet
your criterion is Lazy Scheme. How about we just remove it from the
language dialog instead? Or are there others?
Robby